Our culture war is not a distraction

This is an important topic, yet IMHO the article forgets to ask some important questions.

* What kind of environments are healthy for children to grow up in, to become well-adjusted adults?

* What are the characteristics of healthy communities, which function well for the participants?

* Do all communities have to follow the same values and beliefs, or is it OK for different communities to have different values and beliefs?

I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Unless it's a trigger warning about fishing.

Now that is a serious issue, needing addressed by serious people.

Apparently, the warning was added in a fishing area, where many people might have lost family members at sea, deep sea fishing being one of the most dangerous jobs around.

"Rather than a reflection of antipathies between Right and Left, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism."

Is private ownership of most or all the land, without compensation, compatible with liberty? You shouldn't have to be a Marxist to understand why this should be a central question. I'm not sure what the answer is, but as long as this question is ignored, the conversation isn't a serious one, in my opinion.

I agree that the culture war is "not a distraction" however, and I have some strong feelings about it, though I think they're ultimately peculiar to my circumstances.

But I've noticed works of Plato and copies of Don Quixote removed from my local library. Now I'm not sure they're victims of the culture war (there's a move towards "e-books", and not all of the books by this author/under this title have been removed), but I have my suspicions.

In chapter 29 of Part One of Don Quixote, there's this episode where Sancho Panza is troubled in thought while contemplating rule of the kingdom of Micomicon (an invented name that suggests the words mico {"monkey"} and comico {"comical"}) of Ethiopia that all his subjects will be black, but reassures himself with the thought that he can sell them into slavery.

Now I'm sure this is shockingly racist for modern ears, but are contemporary psyches so fragile that they can't handle the blunt prejudice of a silly, fictional seventeenth century Spanish peasant?

My guess is that the subject of slavery is also why Plato could be considered "problematic". My understanding of his thinking is that authority of those with knowledge over those without is natural, or at least ideal (think of our relationship with young children and animals, which in the latter Plato included humans), and this line of thought would have undergirded his acceptance of slavery. This is different from approving of the exploitation of humans (or potentially any animal for that matter) based on race, and/or without regard for their welfare (the implied onus is not to be less, but more concerned about the welfare of those under one's authority). Also, the most important kind of liberty for Plato is liberty of the soul or psyche, which is hindered by the appetites and desires of the body.

(Note- minor edits throughout)